When will we start seeing new Part 23 aircraft?

pilotmichael

pilotmichael

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
26
Display Name
Display name:
PilotMichael
So the new Part 23 aircraft rules went into effect in August of 2017.

For those of you who want to catch up on what this means, see links below.

I'm excited about this because essentially we're going to see ASTM standards applied to part 23 aicraft (like SLSA today) and the associated cost savings of certification, etc. with that. My question is, when are we going to see the first new aircraft based on this standard? I would suspect there might be some announcements at Oshkosh. Who is going to be the first? I think some existing SLSA manufacturers (Vans, Flight Design, Etc.) and some Part 23 manufacturers (Cirrus maybe, etc.) will start to announce models based on this new standard soon. What do you all think? Am I the only one excited about this?

I want a newish SLSA type aircraft with a higher gross weight/useful load than the light sport regs currently allow. The part 23 rewrite + basic med is the path to that. Yes, I know it probably won't cut the costs a whole lot but I think we'll be surprised on the lower end of the new market.

https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=88746
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...es-final-rule-on-small-aircraft-certification
 
Have to agree ,will probably see some changes at Osh.
 
pilotmichael said:
I want a newish SLSA type aircraft with a higher gross weight/useful load than the light sport regs currently allow. The part 23 rewrite + basic med is the path to that. Yes, I know it probably won't cut the costs a whole lot but I think we'll be surprised on the lower end of the new market.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. Also interested to see if and when the experimental folks are going to wade into the new part 23. Vans, Glasair, Airplane factory, etc. And if CT makes a 4 seater, will other SLSA mfrs follow suit?
 
Cluemeister said:
And if CT makes a 4 seater, will other SLSA mfrs follow suit?
Click to expand...

Well Flight Design (CT) did make a C4, but only 1 so far and it's not for sale because it's not certified yet.

Tecnam is a SLSA mfr and they did follow suit with the P2010, although it was certified under the old rules.
 
Likely the planes we will see first are the ones that have been struggling to get certified now. The Pipistrel Pantera and the Mooney M10 come to mind.
 
Cluemeister said:
I agree 100%. Also interested to see if and when the experimental folks are going to wade into the new part 23. Vans, Glasair, Airplane factory, etc. And if CT makes a 4 seater, will other SLSA mfrs follow suit?
Click to expand...

Why would kit plane makers bother? Vans is selling hundreds of kits now. Why take on the liability of being the legal manufacturer? They tried doing turn key, ready to fly RV-12s under LSA rules and quit. Making kits greatly reduces the three things that makes new airplanes expensive and unprofitable- labor, liability and certification. The new ruling reduces the cost of certification but does nothing about the other two.
 
What does Van's and a heterosexual cake bakery have in common? Neither of them make airplanes. :cool: Van's in the business of selling dreams, not airplanes. They're profitable at it, so more power to them. But they're as useful to my hobby as a wedding cake.

As I said, primary non-commercial or go home.
 
hindsight2020 said:
What does Van's and a heterosexual cake bakery have in common? Neither of them make airplanes. :cool: Van's in the business of selling dreams, not airplanes. They're profitable at it, so more power to them. But they're as useful to my hobby as a wedding cake.

As I said, primary non-commercial or go home.
Click to expand...

I missed it, or maybe forgot, but what is "primary non-commercial"?
 
Dav8or said:
I missed it, or maybe forgot, but what is "primary non-commercial"?
Click to expand...

A provision included in the ARC Part 23 legislation that the FAA chose to summarily assassinate when it came to the implementation of said legislation. Shadowy bought and paid for Judases they are.

The provision created a category that allowed standard AW certificate holding aircraft below certain seats and MGTOW (aka our certified factory built spam cans) to be allowed to be modified (aka placed outside their TCDS) and maintained by the owner operator to the same level of flexibility and freedom as those enjoyed by the humblebrags at the EXAB camp.

The trade was that by allowing the airplane out of the TCDS and/or maintained by exab rules, you wouldn't be able to use it for revenue, just like Exab. It did provide for the allowance to return the aircraft to its TCDS in order to regain those privileges. To which we collectively screamed WHOOO CAAAARES! since all we want to do down here is not walk, but RUN the hell away from that stupid de facto part 25 turbine treatment of these lawnmower powered kites in the first place.

BL, factory built, fully depreciated, exab freedom. That wasn't the bug of the part 23 re-write, that was the feature! ...and they buried it. Which is why these threads about the mickey mouse certification standards of ASTM and that bureaucrat, incrementalism-laden purposefully obfuscating BS that will ensure the needle never moves, is nothing but the usual deck chair rearranging of yesterday. In essence, what re-write? No offense to the OP of course.

The older I get the more I sink into the realization people as a political body, are just cowards. I read back to times when I was in gradeschool and nowhere near in a position to be sentient about these things and guess what, people were saying the same s--t I'm saying today. What a sad joke. Nobody ever wants to move the needle in substantive ways. It's always boil the frog slowly, don't ever thrown him into a boiling pot cuz he'll realize he's getting cooked. Incrementalism is the biggest theft effected on our lives, as beings with limited life span. And they want to come at us for bending the rules in the interest of common sense. I'd expect a bureaucrat to say something like that. Standard appeal to authority fallacy.
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
A provision included in the ARC Part 23 legislation that the FAA chose to summarily assassinate when it came to the implementation of said legislation. Shadowy bought and paid for Judases they are.

The provision created a category that allowed standard AW certificate holding aircraft below certain seats and MGTOW (aka our certified factory built spam cans) to be allowed to be modified (aka placed outside their TCDS) and maintained by the owner operator to the same level of flexibility and freedom as those enjoyed by the humblebrags at the EXAB camp.

The trade was that by allowing the airplane out of the TCDS and/or maintained by exab rules, you wouldn't be able to use it for revenue, just like Exab. It did provide for the allowance to return the aircraft to its TCDS in order to regain those privileges. To which we collectively screamed WHOOO CAAAARES! since all we want to do down here is not walk, but RUN the hell away from that stupid de facto part 25 turbine treatment of these lawnmower powered kites in the first place.

BL, factory built, fully depreciated, exab freedom. That wasn't the bug of the part 23 re-write, that was the feature! ...and they buried it. Which is why these threads about the mickey mouse certification standards of ASTM and that bureaucrat, incrementalism-laden purposefully obfuscating BS that will ensure the needle never moves, is nothing but the usual deck chair rearranging of yesterday. In essence, what re-write? No offense to the OP of course.

The older I get the more I sink into the realization people as a political body, are just cowards. I read back to times when I was in gradeschool and nowhere near in a position to be sentient about these things and guess what, people were saying the same s--t I'm saying today. What a sad joke. Nobody ever wants to move the needle in substantive ways. It's always boil the frog slowly, don't ever thrown him into a boiling pot cuz he'll realize he's getting cooked. Incrementalism is the biggest theft effected on our lives, as beings with limited life span. And they want to come at us for bending the rules in the interest of common sense. I'd expect a bureaucrat to say something like that. Standard appeal to authority fallacy.
Click to expand...

Was this actually included? I thought it was just people talking about it, but was never included in any proposed legislation.
 
Dav8or said:
Was this actually included? I thought it was just people talking about it, but was never included in any proposed legislation.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was included, lock, stock and barrel. Section 6.4 and Appendix G. Aviation Rulemaking Committee. The FAA drug feet for two years post POTUS-signing in order to even make any implementation,and when they did, that specific recommendation was shelved summarily.
 
hindsight2020 said:
The provision created a category that allowed standard AW certificate holding aircraft below certain seats and MGTOW (aka our certified factory built spam cans) to be allowed to be modified (aka placed outside their TCDS) and maintained by the owner operator to the same level of flexibility and freedom as those enjoyed by the humblebrags at the EXAB camp.
Click to expand...

Well that would have been cool, and something to be hoped for some day, but baby steps here. The new part 23 is still a seismic change (prescriptive to performance based standards) and a huge step in the right direction. Basic med as well: not everything we wanted but a big step in the right direction.

I think companies that got in and out of the SLSA market (see Vans, maybe even Cessna) will take another hard look at the light end of the market. That 1320 pound limit is a category killer.

Love to see Cessna try again with an new ASTM 152 with no arbitrary weight limit.
 
I heard that Glasair was going to build certified Sportsman's. They may go the Part 23 route.
 
A German company certified the Glastar at as the Symphony
 
I do not know if they intended to be prat of the new Part 23, but there are a few planes in the pipeline.

C4
Pipistrel Panthera
Diamond DA 50's
Maybe the Mooney M10 (forget if it is on or off again)

As far as piston singles go, those are the ones I know of, and would all be certified under the new rules.
 
hindsight2020 said:
A provision included in the ARC Part 23 legislation that the FAA chose to summarily assassinate when it came to the implementation of said legislation. Shadowy bought and paid for Judases they are.

The provision created a category that allowed standard AW certificate holding aircraft below certain seats and MGTOW (aka our certified factory built spam cans) to be allowed to be modified (aka placed outside their TCDS) and maintained by the owner operator to the same level of flexibility and freedom as those enjoyed by the humblebrags at the EXAB camp.

The trade was that by allowing the airplane out of the TCDS and/or maintained by exab rules, you wouldn't be able to use it for revenue, just like Exab. It did provide for the allowance to return the aircraft to its TCDS in order to regain those privileges. To which we collectively screamed WHOOO CAAAARES! since all we want to do down here is not walk, but RUN the hell away from that stupid de facto part 25 turbine treatment of these lawnmower powered kites in the first place.

BL, factory built, fully depreciated, exab freedom. That wasn't the bug of the part 23 re-write, that was the feature! ...and they buried it. Which is why these threads about the mickey mouse certification standards of ASTM and that bureaucrat, incrementalism-laden purposefully obfuscating BS that will ensure the needle never moves, is nothing but the usual deck chair rearranging of yesterday. In essence, what re-write? No offense to the OP of course.

The older I get the more I sink into the realization people as a political body, are just cowards. I read back to times when I was in gradeschool and nowhere near in a position to be sentient about these things and guess what, people were saying the same s--t I'm saying today. What a sad joke. Nobody ever wants to move the needle in substantive ways. It's always boil the frog slowly, don't ever thrown him into a boiling pot cuz he'll realize he's getting cooked. Incrementalism is the biggest theft effected on our lives, as beings with limited life span. And they want to come at us for bending the rules in the interest of common sense. I'd expect a bureaucrat to say something like that. Standard appeal to authority fallacy.
Click to expand...

Mike B, is that you? :)
 
Primary Non Commercial would go so much farther than anything else that has been done or proposed to breathe some new life into piston single GA. But The horrible bureaucracy that is the FAA would rather regulate it into the grave rather than let Americans have the same freedom that Canada has had for a decade with their owner maintenance category. I currently own a piper Vagabond and is the first and will be the last " Certified " aircraft I will ever own.
 
There is already one Part 23 airplane for sale. The Cub Crafters X Cub has been for sale a few months now.
 
So this was killed?

6.4 PRIMARY NON‐COMMERCIAL CATEGORY
The Primary Non‐Commercial Category is intended for the private owner to operate their aircraft in a
substantially less burdensome and costly manner by reducing the level of FAA maintenance and
alteration requirements to a level appropriate for a privately owned vehicle.
Recommendation: The FAA create a Primary Non‐Commercial Category under 14 CFR part 21.
The Primary Non‐Commercial Category is intended for the private owner to operate their aircraft in
a substantially less burdensome and costly manner by reducing the level of FAA maintenance and
alteration requirements to a level appropriate for a privately owned vehicle.
 
iflyvfr said:
So this was killed?

6.4 PRIMARY NON‐COMMERCIAL CATEGORY
The Primary Non‐Commercial Category is intended for the private owner to operate their aircraft in a
substantially less burdensome and costly manner by reducing the level of FAA maintenance and
alteration requirements to a level appropriate for a privately owned vehicle.
Recommendation: The FAA create a Primary Non‐Commercial Category under 14 CFR part 21.
The Primary Non‐Commercial Category is intended for the private owner to operate their aircraft in
a substantially less burdensome and costly manner by reducing the level of FAA maintenance and
alteration requirements to a level appropriate for a privately owned vehicle.
Click to expand...

Yep, Dead. It was too scary for some.
 
iflyvfr said:
So this was killed?
Click to expand...
From what I understood it was not so much "who" but "what" that sunk this recommendation. If the conversion had been simply a one way process it would have made it out of committee. It was the conversion back to Normal Category that killed it. I recall one suggestion to fix that issue was install a new data plate and surrender the old one. But it fell on deaf ears.
 
pilotmichael said:
Yes, I know it probably won't cut the costs a whole lot but I think we'll be surprised on the lower end of the new market.
Click to expand...
These new planes aren't going to be cheaper than S-LSA airplanes today, so we're looking at $150k+. That is beyond my budget. Also, they aren't going to attract new people to aviation in the way of e.g. Icon A5. So in the end I don't care one bit.
 
Bell206 said:
From what I understood it was not so much "who" but "what" that sunk this recommendation. If the conversion had been simply a one way process it would have made it out of committee. It was the conversion back to Normal Category that killed it. I recall one suggestion to fix that issue was install a new data plate and surrender the old one. But it fell on deaf ears.
Click to expand...
No Fed ever lost his pension for saying “No.”
 
paflyer said:
No Fed ever lost his pension for saying “No.”
Click to expand...
True. But the committee should have at least made him work for that "no" instead of serving it on a silver platter.
 
I want a $2000 IFR GPS.
 
paflyer said:
I want a $2000 IFR GPS.
Click to expand...

Plenty of KLN90B and KLN94 units floating around. Not new, but certainly under $2000 to acquire.

Don't the experimental guys still have to buy the same GPS units we certified guys do at the moment??
 
I’m talking about new electronics at a realistic price comparable to an iPad running foreflight and a stratus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top